Hi @pitah1, thanks for the comment! I'm Jon, the guy who built the feature :)
You're spot on here. Unique identifiers within a flow shouldn't necessarily be replaced with a randomly generated string. We've attacked this problem from two different angles.
1. If an API request has a JSON response, we'll generate JS load test code for that request that begins with `const responseA = await axios[...];`. You can edit the load test to use the response data in subsequent requests.
2. We also attempt to intelligently replace UUIDs (or predictable identifiers) with a placeholder like `{fieldName}`. This highlights the values that need user intervention.
We use the Swagger schema to determine the available API endpoints, if each endpoint has a request body vs query string params vs none, and so on. We sprinkle in AI to help decide how to best saturate request bodies with realistic data via faker.js.
You're spot on here. Unique identifiers within a flow shouldn't necessarily be replaced with a randomly generated string. We've attacked this problem from two different angles.
1. If an API request has a JSON response, we'll generate JS load test code for that request that begins with `const responseA = await axios[...];`. You can edit the load test to use the response data in subsequent requests.
2. We also attempt to intelligently replace UUIDs (or predictable identifiers) with a placeholder like `{fieldName}`. This highlights the values that need user intervention.
We use the Swagger schema to determine the available API endpoints, if each endpoint has a request body vs query string params vs none, and so on. We sprinkle in AI to help decide how to best saturate request bodies with realistic data via faker.js.